User talk:Juppiter/Archive
Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful.
By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.
Finally, here are some open tasks:
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
Hope to see you around the Wiki! And if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page! Regards, NeutralityJFP
[edit]What's FOJ? Friends of Jill? You mean like Megan McTavish? That would make sense. I don't know...explain it some more on my talk page. Mike H 18:13, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, then a list is not needed, but it does need to be mentioned. Like, write a paragraph saying how she incorporates these actors and how she knows them. I tried to do that already with Kale, Jensen and Tim from AW to OLTL. Mike H 15:14, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
If I may ask...
[edit]How old are you? I only ask because I'm on facebook, and I would love to have another facebook friend. Mike H 06:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Hogan Sheffer
[edit]I agree about balancing the views on Sheffer. My problem with it before was that it was too much a black-and-white "critics love him, fans hate him" kind of thing. I guess I went a bit too far in the other direction, in trying to make it less one-sided. Thanks for adding back the "opposing viewpoint". I'm actually not in love with his work myself. I think he's not bad -- better than most of his immediate predecessors -- but he also seems to think he's far more innovative than he really is, and that irks me.--Sterntreiber 10:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thank you for removing the deletion area for thet ATWT history pages. I really appreciate it. Merry CHristmas. --JamesB3 18:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for putting up with me Juppiter 18:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
New '80s ATWT screengrab
[edit]Where did you get that from? Do you have better tape copies/DVD copies of the old episodes? Because I'm looking for those, what a coincidence. Mike H 01:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, no. If I had tapes of Marland ATWT (besides the soap classics CBS used to do), I believe I would settle into soap opera retirement. Alas, hindsight is 20/20.
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Studio/5185/ .... Is that against the rules? I thought it might be. . . . .
Juppiter 04:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Did you ask permission before using them? Mike H 03:31, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Soap article policy proposal
[edit]Since you edit soap articles, I figure you might be interested in the policy proposal I've brought up on the talk page for the Soap WikiProject. If you haven't done so yet, be sure to sign your name on the regular page, noting that you support the work in such a project. Mike H 08:06, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Toilet humo(u)r
[edit]Hi there, Juppiter. I reverted your changes on that article, because both "humor" and "humour" are acceptable spellings on wikipedia, and the article was originally started with the variant "humour". (I'm not sure what the situation is with green -- the mix of styles there probably means you were correct to standardize on one spelling of color/colour.) But please take a look at what the Manual of Style says about variant spellings/conventions used in English. Best, –Hajor 00:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. Slightly more than pathetic, fighting over the national ownership of toilet hum... er, funniness. Not even a worthwhile article. Oh, and you did it out of boredom? Boredom?!? Take a look at the Open Tasks at the top of this page and I'll give you boredom, young man -- as my grandmother would no doubt have said, had she been a Wikipedian. –Hajor 01:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Spelling standardization
[edit]There are many reasons why we Americans cannot expect Wikipedia ever to conform to "American" spelling. Just a few notable ones:
- The English-speaking Commonwealth of Nations (which doesn't even include all English-speaking nations besides the U.S.) has a greater population than the U.S., so majority does not imply American spelling.
- Wikipedia earnestly endeavors to be an inclusive, global encyclopedia. Right now, the world is getting fairly sick of the U.S. trying to impose its own ideals. Frankly, as an American, I find it particularly embarrassing that this form of cultural imperialism completely contradicts one of our founding principles — liberty.
- Most damning of all, as I've said many times in many of these debates, when it comes to writing style, there is no such thing as "American", whether for spelling, punctuation, grammar, or any other style elements. Anyone can cite simple examples like "-ize" vs. "-ise", or single-or-double quotation marks, but style issues are vastly more complex than these simplistic assessments. If you've ever read the many style guides available in U.S. libraries (which I have, in my efforts to contribute to the ongoing debates at Wikipedia:Manual of Style and related articles), you'd find that the professionals frequently disagree on many issues.
For what it's worth, I wish we did have a practical way to make style issues standard. Unfortunately, it just isn't in the cards. I believe that the Internet, with its legions of incompetent writers posting all manner of indecipherable nonsense on rapidly propagating blogs, is going to make writing standards even fuzzier than they already are. I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Buffy the Vampire Slayer:
- Tara: Well, I-I go online sometimes, but… everyone's spelling is really bad. It's… depressing.
— Jeff Q (talk) 01:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Here's another way to look at this issue. I thought I might suggest that, because the content of Wikipedia is freely available for anyone to copy and modify for their own encyclopedia (as long as appropriate credit is given), one could create an "Americopedia" that would be Wikipedia with rigidly enforced spelling and other style rules based on a single authoritative source, avoiding most of the typically cited practical problems. The glaring problem with this is how to correct hundreds of millions of misspellings in half a million articles, especially since no robot parser can be sure to catch every instance that should be corrected. (One problem would be intentional alternative spellings used in examples, but that's only the most obvious one, perhaps.) It would have to be done on an ongoing basis as well, with frequent refreshes from the error-plagued source.
- Clearly, one would need many eyeballs (and keyboards) on such a project to make it effective. But the more people one added to the project, the more disagreement one would get on what the best authoritative source is. Should it be Webster's, American Heritage, or another respected source? Which edition? Should it perhaps be an online version, more likely to keep up with the times? Should one create a melded American standard (which is the Wikipedia way, without the "American" part), and if so, how to decide what to include? One would essentially replicate the angry debates from Wikipedia in miniature — though it wouldn't seem "miniature" to the people caught up in it!
- Wikipedia's utility and robustness come from the vast number of contributors who participate, but in such a large population of free thinkers (in the generic sense, not the ideological one), with such varying backgrounds, one cannot hope to achieve consensus on many controversial issues, and any such consensus will frequently be revisited and revised. U.S. political and legal history provides innumerable examples of this principle.
- It comes down to this: when you have a hundred thousand decision makers, no decision can be ideal. This is a basic principle of democracy. It's one of the things that makes it so ugly, and yet so effective, because people can grudgingly accept that compromise is necessary if they believe they can have an impact on the decision-making process. Wikipedia is essentially an experiment in real-time, world-wide democracy in publishing, with all the warts and blemishes that inevitably accompany the heady power of mass involvement.
- "… it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." — Winston Churchill
- I don't think it's so much elitism as it is impatience with rehashing old controversies with no likely conclusion. People tend to get vituperous and preachy (as even I must confess to) when they have to reiterate arguments they've made dozens of times before. It doesn't help when people use words calculated to get a rise out of opponents, like cultural imperalism, egocentric, and caste. We're all human, after all. Just today, I read an amusing Dilbert, in which the prototypical geek has something relevant to say:
- Dilbert: People are so conditioned to take sides that a balanced analysis looks to them like hatred.
- I would add to that that, in this age of attack journalism, a calm argument for one side can look like mincing resignation. I mourn the loss of rational debate. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it's so much elitism as it is impatience with rehashing old controversies with no likely conclusion. People tend to get vituperous and preachy (as even I must confess to) when they have to reiterate arguments they've made dozens of times before. It doesn't help when people use words calculated to get a rise out of opponents, like cultural imperalism, egocentric, and caste. We're all human, after all. Just today, I read an amusing Dilbert, in which the prototypical geek has something relevant to say:
Hi Juppiter: No doubt you are feeling a bit bruised just now. You made a proposal in good faith and reacted defensively to some responses that appeared dismissive. It seems to me that everyone in the debate has WP's best interests at heart and I admire you for sticking with the discussion when you felt so beleagured. It is a problem with any established open-access group that newcomers will make suggestions that have already been discussed and will take the jaded dismissal of their predecessors personally. Each new generation challenges the values those before it. nsh reminded me at the weekend that it is the job of jaded old men like me to challenge the assumptions of naive youngsters like him when they do their job of questioning the status quo. There was an element of teasing of me and him in this but the underlying message feels important. So, please don't retire hurt. Your commitment to this great project benefits us all. Do, please, continue to question the behaviours and attitudes that you find here. I imagine that this experience has already taught you to research the history of policies before making any challenge, and to consider the way that your readers might feel about any assertion. Now lets go and have some more fun doing good stuff. --Theo (Talk) 10:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
non remorde
[edit]salve, Iuppiter. actio tea, Wikipedia:Standardise spellings, non provenit. cogitat nos incomptos esse. non sumus! dedisce team actionem, scribeque, nos amabis! Vale, Smoddy (tgeck) 17:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I just tracked you through an edit you did to Homosexuality about an hour ago. You left it in a huge and horrible mess, finishing mid-sentence--it's been cleaned up since then. Thought you might like to know. You were very nearly mistaker for a vandal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Debate at COTW talk
[edit]I just wanted to let you know I agree with and Fenice on the subject, infact I added to every sing page however they all were reverted by SimonP. Please help me in the discussion. Thanks. Falphin 00:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, you voted for the COTW-template to be on the article page. Is there a specific reason why you discriminate against the Improvement Drive project (AID-template) as compared to the other COTWs? --Fenice 05:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
If you would like to insist on the AID-template having specific different rules than the others, please tell us on the Wikipedia talk:Template locations.--Fenice 06:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Biography Collaboration of the eek: Rodgers and Hammerstein
[edit]Rodgers and Hammerstein was listed as a candidate for the Collaboration of the week recently. Unfortunately, the nomination dropped out. I have renominated it on the Biography Collaboration of the week however - come and support the nomination there!--Fenice 16:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
MADD article
[edit]I might do a read-through about MADD's article...it looks like a very large, POV rant about the woman and her stuff needs to have online or print sourcing. Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Colors
[edit]Why have you put colors into the infobox? I find them to be very distracting. Mike H. That's hot 02:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello -- Image:World post soviet.png has no license information on it. I know the orignal image is {{PD}}, you should consider tagging your changes with this on its image description page. Thanks --Admrboltz (T | C) 22:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Daytime Emmy
[edit]Yes, I agree; go ahead and change. Mike H. That's hot 01:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
History of art now COTW
[edit]Thanks to your support, this article is now the collaboration of the week. Feel free to help in any way possible during this week. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-19 20:21
Adminship
[edit]I didn't really give adminship much of a thought, until Michaelbeckham thought with my solid contributions that I would be "admin material". I don't like the way admins handle things, take a look at the deletion reviews for Lee Hotti and 20 to 1: One Hit Wonders. I think if I join the group I can help get rid of the cancer that sweeps these admins. They seem ill-informed when it comes to issues such as the aforementioned articles, and who knows, maybe I can change their views and make the newbies feel more welcome. Rogerthat Talk 08:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair use
[edit]Greetings! I stumbled across your userpage and noticed you were using three fair use images on it, which isn't permitted as per WP:FUC. I've delinked them from the page; just thought I'd let you know so you could find something else to put there. Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:Fallonabduction.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Fallonabduction.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 11:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
[edit]My request for adminship ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I hope that I can earn your trust with my future actions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Post-Soviet sources
[edit]Hi Juppiter. I just wanted to ask you if you would happen to have some good sources for Post-Soviet reform. I am specifically interested in public organization reform in Post-Soviet states, and seeing as you and Aris seem to be the primary contributors to the article I thought I would ask you both for sources. A list of general Post-Soviet sources would be good for the article too, by the way. Thanks, Matatigre36 06:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:Joanalexis.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Joanalexis.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 05:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RfA
[edit]Just wanted to drop a quick note — nothing fancy! — to say thanks for your vote of confidence in my recent request for adminship. As you might have noticed it was unsuccessful; most objections related to my lack of experience. While I disagree that nearly 4000 edits, whether spread over two months or ten, constitutes a lack of experience, I respect the vote and will try again at a later date. I'm disappointed that I won't be able to help out in the meantime as much as I could with admin access, but again I appreciate your support and hope I'll have it the next time I am nominated. ⇒ BRossow T/C 18:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Re : Nomination for adminship for (aeropagitica)
[edit]
|
Hello! Thank you for taking the time to vote for me in my recent request for adminship It ended with a final score of (40/10/5). I value all of the contributions made during the process and I will take a special note of the constructive criticism regarding interacting with users in the user talk space. If you have questions or requests, please leave a message. (aeropagitica) 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
Re : Knots Landing
[edit]Thanks for your message re. the edits/episode list. It's possible that the episode list could be expanded into a full guide with individual pages for each episode (as per other shows) but this would be dependent on time and the rate at which Warner decide to release the DVDs. Thanks again Ben King 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
AID
[edit]
-Litefantastic 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
FAC - UberCryxic
[edit]Hey Juppiter, how's it going? I've nominated the article for FA, so come by at any time. Thank you so very much.
PS I made new changes to the introduction, just in case you haven't read the latest note I left at the military history peer review.UberCryxic 03:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Klseason10cap.jpg
[edit]
|
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Klseason10cap.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please follow the instructions when you are uploading images and adding tags. The correct tag for you Knots Landing caps is {{tv-screenshot}}, not the blanket {{fairuse}}. The former clearly says "Please do not use this tag." Thanks. The JPS 12:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Klseason11cap.jpg
[edit]|
|
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Klseason11cap.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:Klseason7cap.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Klseason7cap.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 20:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:Melrose.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Melrose.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
- Wikipedia:Image use policy
- [[Wikipedia
Hi, I'd like to draw your attention to the above policy statement, particularly:
- "When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others."
Recently you wrote:
- "Someday we'll realize that there is power is numbers.... There are few of them and many of us. We will storm the bastille and destroy the OrphanBot. Until then, vive la resistance" [1]
This is clearly not compatible with Wikipedia policy. It is neither civil nor does it express a dispute in a manner that permits it to be resolved with civility. It shows no respect for other editors whose opinions may be different from yours, and looks forward to a projected conflict that will involve, apparently, the destruction of a user account for which you have apparently conceived a personal dislike. This is unacceptable.
Please familiarize yourself with, and follow, the site policies. Remember also that all Wikipedia content is released under the GNU Free Documentation License and if you want to continue to work on the material in a different environment you are free to take it under the very liberal terms of that license and do what you want with it. Nobody is forcing you to work on the material here, if you don't want to. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the harassing link from your userpage. --Tony Sidaway 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd already warned you, and then I see this and this. Please read the civility policy. --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree that deleting User_talk:Micoolio101/Supporters in having OrphanBot Shutdown was civil, but this ultimately isn't a fight worth fighting. Some will delete and censor and destroy and get away with it, but that's OK because it builds their egos. Ultimately, that's as important as this being a quality encyclopedia since nothing lasts forever anyway. It's cool. juppiter talk #c 05:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been nominated for admin
[edit]Just thought you'd like to know, I've been nominated for an admin.
Micoolio101 09:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101
I've Got An Idea
[edit]E-mail me at andrewsylvia@gmail.com, please don't use the "e-mail this user" thing. Karmafist p 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm leaving
[edit]Okay, OrphanBot and Carnildo have really pissed me off. I'm now leaving this place, and moving to Uncyclopedia. Maybe there I'll be surrounded by REAL people! There is a very small chance I will return.
While I'm gone, I want you to do a few tasks for me:
1. Re-do the petition against OrphanBot. If it gets deleted, wait a week or two, and re-do it with a different name (choose something that does not have a negative view on OrphanBot)
2. If Carnildo is an admin, request de-adminship on him. (A good reason is he makes smart-ass remarks) If it fails, wait a month or two, then try again. (find some negative things about him)
3. Become an admin. This will be a great honour for me & you.
I'll also give you the link to my new userpage on Unclyclopedia.
Sorry it has come to this...
P.S. I have been temporarily blocked and writing this on an IP account. If this gets reverted, I'll revert it back on my account.
My Uncyclopedia page: [2]
If you haven't looked recently, you might like to check out the recent discussions there. Tyrenius 06:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look and reconsidering. Tyrenius 08:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
[edit]|
Thanks!
 Thank you very much for your comments on my recent Request for Adminship. The request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address your concerns before running again. If you have any feedback for me, please don't hesitate to leave it at my talk page. Thanks! |
Civility warning
[edit]Your comments on Carnildo's RfA caused me to go digging in your recent contributions. I found this [3] which is incivil. I suspect I might find more if I dug hard enough. You're hereby warned not to be incivil in that manner again. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
[edit]
|
Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)} |
Your sig
[edit]Hi, I dont know if anyone has pointed you to WP:SIG beofre but it does say there that you shouldn't use images in your signature. You might want to remove it. They serve no real purpose and can be confusing. Cheers, --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Uhh....
[edit]I'm not saying the socks are necessarily yours, but since they're opposing per you and making the same arguments as you, it should be checked. It's just a precaution. For example, if in an RfA 20 brand new users come and support the candidate for no particular reason, they should be checked against the candidate, though it's most likely not the candidate who created them. --Rory096 03:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo's RfA
[edit]Whatever your opinion of the closing of Carnildo's RfA, this edit is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Please do not continue to make disruptive edits in this way. Thanks, Gwernol 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- This really doesn't accomplish anything either. ×Meegs 06:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt#Requested move revisited and consider participating. Thank you. —Mets501 (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
My move was due to the fact this Wikipedia is for infomation in the English language, it is not an American-themed project. As the New York Price Chopper chain is no more important than the Canadian, Kansas, or New Zealand area chains, there is no reason it should have priority. -- Zanimum 14:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal Attack
[edit]Juppiter, why did u call me an "asshole"? That was against Wiki policy & it was uncalled for. I get that MANY daytime serials viewers don't think the way that I do & that I'm vilified for being me, that you should NOT have called me an "asshole"!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk%3ABush_approval_ratings_line_graph.png&diff=71094160&oldid=71094124){kind=link}
ATTACK!!!!!!!!!
[edit]Tired Of Being Personally Attacked! What should someone do if they have been REPEATEDLY PERSONALLY ATTACKED!? Isn't PERSONALLY ATTACKING someone AGAINST Wiki policy!? This user (TAnthony) ATTACKED me TWO times! Here's the attack that the below user (TAnthony) posted! He should be reprimaned IMMEDIATELY! I highlighted his ABUSE:
- ATTACK 1 by TAnthony: OMG, this guy is an idiot. Unfortunately, I think I "started" it in a way; I tagged some disambig page thing he did for speedy deletion, and then all of a sudden a few Dune articles were tagged as "unreferenced" -- and they were literally articles pulled from my recent contribs, things I'd made tiny edits on. He said it was because the articles needed references, but one he tagged was the Dune: House Corrino article, which as you probably know is one paragraph of synopsis, and the article itself is the source! I reverted the first few things he did immediately but I knew eventually the rest of the Dune posse would get in on the act. Anyway, I think he'll lose interest; it's too much to hope that he'll realize he's wrong! User:TAnthony 15:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- ATTACK 2 by TAnthony: This and MANY other articles have been tagged by User:Yrgh latly with nebulous reasoning. He says these pages fit into the deltion policy but he doesn't say how; he cites articles as unreliable and unsourced and yet they clearly are. It is ludicrous that discussions need to be held on dozens of pages to indulge his insane tagging. Can any idiot just tag AfDs? TAnthony 01:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Since becoming a valuable Wiki editor, I've been PERSONALLY ATTACKED THREE TIMES ON WIKIPEDIA & NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT! The other time was when User:Juppiter (on the Christopher Goutman history pg) called mean "asshole"! I reported Juppiter & NOTHING was done about it! Consequences!?
- No one, i repeat: no one, has told me about what is being or what will be done to TAnthony! Is this the image Wiki wants to portray: Come to Wiki, edit & BE INSULTED.....REPEATEDELY!?!?!?!?!?! Yrgh 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh
FAKE apology
[edit]YOU called me an "asshole"...I'm NOT an "asshole". YOU gave a FAKE apology...I don't accept YOUR fake apology! Yrgh 05:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh
Leave Wiki
[edit]"I made an honest apology for calling you an asshole much earlier. Now, your behavior has led me to believe that I was right the first time."
YOU don't know ANYTHING about me. How can YOU think I'm an a-hole!? Would YOU rather i delete ALL pages I've created & leave Wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
TAnthony
[edit]Just wanted to say, you're my new best friend! TAnthony 14:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Banning of Yrgh
[edit]No, we cannot ban him yet, because the only area where he is acting in bad faith is in trying to get you and TAnthony lynched for the comments you apologized to him for. The only thing I would feel comfortable with at this juncture is to block him for 24 hours so he can have a period of acquaintance with rules and guidelines, which is obvious he has not read (he has fumbled very badly with listing AFDs and filing an RFC). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that the incident he's going on about happened way back in mid/late-November. He's still at it with the lynch attempts, violating proper procedure along the way. (I have to wonder if he's not doing it the right way because he knows it will fail.) Juppiter, have you considered filing a bad faith RFC of your own? --SandChigger 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken. It doesn't look like it will take very long, actually. (No separate section creation, no signature, same ole same ole.) --SandChigger 17:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cyde has done it. I replaced his user and talk pages with an indef ban template. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Karmafist
[edit]Howdy! I saw that you just left a message on Karmafist's user talk asserting that you disagree with the block. It's academic at this point, but out of curiosity, why? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Chairboy, I don't think that Karmafist's devotion to this project can be denied, right up to his demise. I don't think anyone ever tried to engage in debate with him and/or his supporters. So Wikipedia chugged right along without making any of the changes recommended by Karmafist, when in fact considering these changes could have been beneficial to the encyclopedia. Did we follow the rules in blocking him? Yeah. But I think it was detrimental to the project. Juppiter 01:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- How would you characterize his fleet of sock puppets? BTW, thank you for your thoughtful reply. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
David Salva Axe
[edit]Im supprised that someone who has been an editor for so long and made so many contributions would contribute to a total nonsense article such as David "Slava" Axe. --ChesterMarcol 01:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Atwt2007.jpg
[edit]i added licensing information about the image. i wanted to let you know, since you are the uploader. the_undertow talk 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yoghurt
[edit]I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Burgle / burglarize
[edit]Websters online offers both as US English. I agree US subjects should use US English, but where that condition is satisfied and a version is also used more widely, should not the word with wider usage be used? Anyway, my main concern was to correct the use of 'rob' in this context. Kingsmead 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Midnight Ramblers
[edit]A tag has been placed on Midnight Ramblers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cquan (don't yell at me...) 04:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:Price chopper.jpg
[edit]|
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Price chopper.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia New York Meet-Up
[edit]
Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
--David Shankbone 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Atwt2007.jpg)
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Atwt2007.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Personal attacks
[edit]
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:BetacommandBot, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I am specifically referring to these edits. —METS501 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
-- Merope 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Jenniferbeals.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Jenniferbeals.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rettetast 20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
August 2007
[edit]I think a Community Sanction would be the best idea (after my block of course). Keep me out of all image discussions... If one of the images I uploaded is going to be deleted, don't even alert me about it. Don't allow me to upload anymore either. I have clearly permanently decided I disagree with WP image policy enforcement and my obsession with the topic is keeping me from being a good editor. Juppiter 02:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Juppiter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I insulted User:Rettetast, and User:Rettetast blocked me. I believe Rettetast had a clear conflict of interest here. First of all, my vandalism of Rettetast's user page was very easy to revert, and is not worth losing me for 3 weeks. I just got rid of hearsay on Wendy Riche tonight, which harms Wikipedia's reputation much more than my insulting poor widdle Rettetast. I think I should at the very least be unblocked and re-blocked by an impartial admin, even if the duration is the same.
Decline reason:
You are correct in saying that Rettetast should have requested another admin's help in imposing the block. However, these diffs [4] [5] are well worth losing you for three weeks. There is absolutely no reason for you not to maintain civility in such trivial disputes. You are of course welcome to contribute productively when the block expires. — Pascal.Tesson 03:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Concur with above. Further, referring to Rettetast as "poor widdle Rettetast" shows a complete lack of remorse and lack of willingness to reform your manner of editing. It's not just images. It's your long standing pattern of personal abuse that is problematic here. If you are not willing to change your behavior in this regard, it will most likely eventually lead to you being permanently banned form Wikipedia. This is the third time you have been blocked for making personal attacks. I fear that blocks have no effect in reforming this behavior of yours. --Durin 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- But it IS just images... check the edits I made on my IP address... I usually can go months making constructive edit and then one of those damn bots comments on my user page and I just lose it. That's why I propose that after my block ends, I should be left out of all image talk whatsoever. I want to be put on a sort of "do-not-call list" for those bots. And if I'm a good boy for a whole year can you guys rescind Carnildo's adminship too? lol jk jk I shouldn't get ahead of myself... he'll screw himself out of it on his own one day. Juppiter 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your pattern of incivility extends well beyond images. --Durin 12:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK Durin <g> I don't have time to argue with you.... I actually have a life outside of WP. For me, and the vast majority of people on this site that don't spend all day tagging images, this is just a hobby Juppiter 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your pattern of incivility extends well beyond images. --Durin 12:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- But it IS just images... check the edits I made on my IP address... I usually can go months making constructive edit and then one of those damn bots comments on my user page and I just lose it. That's why I propose that after my block ends, I should be left out of all image talk whatsoever. I want to be put on a sort of "do-not-call list" for those bots. And if I'm a good boy for a whole year can you guys rescind Carnildo's adminship too? lol jk jk I shouldn't get ahead of myself... he'll screw himself out of it on his own one day. Juppiter 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)